UK Government Thread

I just think there are better ways of plugging this alleged £22bn black hole.

The problem is they’ve put themselves in a straitjacket by promising to ‘reduce’ debt and live within their means. A labour govt is primarily elected by the voters to spend money on things which the tories won’t. Stuff like hospitals, schools, roads, railways, public sector wages and more generous benefits. The reason labour are tanking at the polls is because the electorate have figured out that they might as well have elected the real tories rather than the fake ones.

If labout want to be re-elected in 4 years they need to forget about ‘balancing the books’ and start spending money. It’s classic Keynesian stuff even without any MMT-related arguments.

The problem is they’ve put themselves in a straitjacket by promising to ‘reduce’ debt and live within their means.

Same as every chancellor has promised since forever. I’ll bet that Reeves reducing the ‘bung’ that the BoE is paying out 5% interest on bank reserves of 700bn – saves 35bn and will announce it at Budget and no one but the commercial banks will pay attention to it at all. Why is Reeves playing it like she is? To my mind you just need take a look at how things went for Truss/Kwarteng’s mini-budget when they didn’t do  the ground-work at all.

How’d you leap to that conclusion?

Because you categorize the term ‘revolt’ used by the Independent as ‘hyperbole’, despite the fact that it is a perfectly reasonable term to use in a political context and you obviously would have no problem at all if it was used to describe developments in a Tory Cabinet.

And no, the Independent does not sell newspapers by misinforming their readers concerning the severity of a Labour Cabinet crisis. In fact I would say the complete opposite is true, ie, their readers will expect a fair assessment from the Independent, unlike Tory leaning newspapers

despite the fact that it is a perfectly reasonable term to use

But only in newspapers, It’s also says that Reeves is “scrambling” to find cuts and tax raises of £40m. It’s how newspapers speak. Take it at face value if you want, but really it’s there for a purpose, and it ain’t to aid clarity to a story.

kerley

That is why some of us wanted Labour to be a lot more ambitious and progressive – not only because we feel that is better for society but also for future chances of winning elections based on the fact they actually improved things noticeably.

I agree with all that. I voted for Corbyn twice but even whilst putting that “X” in the box, I left the booth both times knowing it was a lost cause. It was crushing.

For reasons I don’t agree with or totally understand, the country wasn’t ready to have Corbyn as PM.

I wish it wasn’t so but we all live in the reality of the day and like it or not, the UK definitely was ready for Starmer to be PM. Now, as much as I try I can’t see Starmer’s GE victory as a bad thing. I don’t and wont agree with all his policies, the same with Corbyn’s  had history differed. However, fundamentally, we now have a government that will try to improve the country’s fortunes even if we might not agree with how it tries to do it at times.

So, yeah, some might easily forget the constant culture war and turmoil of the Tories but I’m not one of them.

For reasons I don’t agree with or totally understand, the country wasn’t ready to have Corbyn as PM.

On the contrary, in 2017 labour won 40% of the vote which is 6% higher than Starmer and on a par with Blair. The country seemed quite comfortable with Corbyn as PM, it was Labour MPs who didn’t want him.

On the contrary, in 2017 labour won 40% of the vote which is 6% higher than Starmer and on a par with Blair. The country seemed quite comfortable with Corbyn as PM, it was Labour MPs who didn’t want him.

We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost. The country also lost imo. We can lay the blame at our election system, the RW press, murky invested interests, it really doesn’t matter.

After both GE’s I woke up to another Tory government, that’s the reality and it’s an irrefutable fact of history. I’m not happy about it either but it’s what happened. Twice.

We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost.

It wasn’t you that brought up Corbyn? Btw the Tories also lost the 2017 general election, no party won that election, just for clarity.

It wasn’t you that brought up Corbyn? Btw the Tories also lost the 2017 general election, no party won that election, just for clarity.

It’s at this point that I enact the Honourable Flounce Protocol™ for my and other posters sanity.

Some will agree with my posts, some wont but either outcome is fine with me.

I shall return! 😉

It was actually a serious question……was it not you who brought up Corbyn? If so I don’t understand the whinge about ‘going round and round and it always ends the same way ‘.

If it wasn’t you my apologies, if it was then perhaps don’t mention him, if you believe that it is pointless?

We can go round and round on this but it always ends the same way, Corbyn lost. Labour lost

But your point was that the country wasn’t ready for Corbyn. He won more votes than Starmer did irrespective of how many the tories got. Does that mean the country was less ready for Starmer than they were for Corbyn? The number of votes would seem to suggest that.

I’ll bet that Reeves reducing the ‘bung’ that the BoE is paying out 5% interest on bank reserves of 700bn – saves 35bn and will announce it at Budget

That would be very welcome. The irony of pinching one of the main economic policies of the Reform party is not lost however.

Even if the country wasn’t ready for Corbyn a lot of people were ready for what he and shadow chancellor were proposing where in 2017 they did well in the election even with Corbyn as leader. What if Starmer was there instead of Corbyn, would they have scraped a win? Who knows and probably mostly who cares as it was 7 years ago.

What the country definitely isn’t ready for is more austerity.

Which is presumably why Rachel Reeves is so keen to claim that her austerity isn’t austerity at all.

Although all the signs are that voters are not really falling for that remarkable claim. Voters don’t appear to be quite as stupid as Tories and centrists like to think they are.

 The irony of pinching one of the main economic policies of the Reform party is not lost however.

I’ve read their policies on the “contract with you” page of their website, a surprising number of things they suggest are not completely barking; not least this bit of financial jiggery-pokery.

The Lord Ashcroft analysis showed Corbyn was streets ahead among the under 50’s and it was only the over 75’s or something that swung it towards the tories.

Not that the over 75 vote is worth any less, but still I think it’s interesting to reflect on the fact that those with the biggest stake in the economy at that time, ie the under 60’s, were happy to elect Corbyn on the whole, despite the huge campaign by the right wing media to characterise his politics as being economically suboptimal.

Which is presumably why Rachel Reeves is so keen to claim that her austerity isn’t austerity at all.

Every political party in the western hemisphere tries to balance departmental (day to day) spending with tax revenues. Austerity is when you spend less than the taxes you gather. That our economy is now smaller by a considerable margin than it was (taking a year completely at random) than say 2016 for example; probably shouldn’t be something that gets laid specifically at Reeves or this Labour administration.

Not that the over 75 vote is worth any less

It should be. The best voting reform we could ever make is to remove the vote from pensioners.

Like Logan’s Run?

Like Logan’s Run?

?

I’m talking about rebalancing the voting power of generations in favour of the young who have a higher stake in the future, not killing people off to save resources.

tbf rebalancing the voting power of generations is an equally stupid suggestion as killing off the over 40’s. Maybe disenfranchise women as they stay at home and don’t work so have less of a stake in the future, or those without degrees – they’re not going to earn as much and are a bit thick so won’t have any real stake in the future either

Maybe disenfranchise women as they stay at home and don’t work

Think you’re about 50 years out of date mate. You might want to catch up and think about more modern issues like the disenfranchisement and impoverishment of the younger generation by people who have enjoyed a massive unearned boost to their own wealth through property price inflation and gilt-edged pensions.

Remove the heavy weighing towards the older generation by introducing PR. It’s not just that we have an aging population voting, it’s all about where people are concentrated geographically that skews the power towards the older home owning generation. Young people living in cities are so often just throwing their vote on a pile of votes placed by their young neighbours voting the same… it’s one of the reasons so may don’t vote. We need to count people’s votes, and make those votes count… not disenfranchise people by age, education, or any other category. And give 16 and 17 year olds the vote.

Remove the heavy weighing towards the older generation by introducing PR

It’s probably one of the strongest arguments for PR, but I’m not sure it solves the far right/reform problem. Seeing as the older generation are the main culprits in voting for reactionary fascists I still favour my solution. Kill two birds with one stone. 😉

And give 16 and 17 year olds the vote.

Give them two votes!

If we’re going to be disenfranchising people, my feeling is that over a certain financial threshold you shouldn’t be allowed to vote, so chose one or the other. If you’re free from the worries of paying the mortgage or ‘leccy bill, or being out of work for more than a few weeks/months, then you shouldn’t have a say in how the rest of us organise things.

my feeling is that over a certain financial threshold you shouldn’t be allowed to vote, so chose one or the other.

That would also work. Or anyone who doesn’t pay income tax or claim state benefits?

Disenfranchising more voters won’t help, that is already being done political backers filtering the policies they will support. That is what labours victory is based on, offer nothing deliver nothing and hope the far right don’t re-assemble and purge the left. We already have a government of disenfranchisement.

I read yesterday one of the tory hopefulls is dead set on leaving the ECHR…

So whilst Labour have leaned more toward the center from the frankly loony far left under corbyn.. the tories have leaned even further right.

I think things like that seem to be amusingly forgotten when some say that Labour are just tory lite.

Which of labours policies was “looney far left” by the way?

Is not implementing crippling austerity “looney far left” now, or supporting workers rights is that “looney far left”?

Abolishing Trident for a start… That would not have aged well given the Russian war we have today!

The guy is/was absolutely clueless… I’d sooner vote conservative than Labour with that fantasist in charge!

Plus he was totally anti EU… So much for socialism!! His kind of socialism with him as supreme dictator doesn’t sound very much like socialism to me… It sounds very much like something else, lol!

Abolishing Trident for a start…

That was never a labour policy in a Corbyn manifesto.

Corbyn’s manifestos weren’t even socialist. I don’t ever remember him suggesting the state was going to sieze the means of production. I think you basically imagined it all based on lies printed in the tory press. Well done!

I think you basically imagined it all based on lies printed in the tory press.

Exhibit A:

https://www.politico.eu/article/trident-corbyn-vote-nuclear-news-deterrent/

Need I go on? Lol

Which of labours policies was “looney far left” by the way?

In 2017 the plan to nationalise the railways, water, and post office while conveniently omitting them from the “fully costed” promise that they made. In of themselves not bad per see, just the commitment to do it regardless as a matter of ideology while hiding the cost (which would still be onerous). On the doorstep the govt broadband plan was mostly met with derision (as a canvasser/leafleter)

Abolishing Trident for a start…

That was never a labour policy in a Corbyn manifesto.

Oh there you go with your nitpicking again. Next you will be reminding us how Corbyn warned UK politicians not to cosy up with Putin and the Russian oligarchy!

The important thing is what the Daily Mail told its readers, not what is actually true.

Oh yes.. I forgot about the free internet for everyone unicorn, hahah!

Exhibit A:

So you yourself provides evidence which completely undermines your previous claim that under Corbyn Labour had a policy of abolishing Trident? Well done!!

I actually voted Labour in the last election…

I don’t particularly like Starmer, but I’d take him over corbyn or the Conservative party.

A bit a a Hobsons choice, but it is what it is.

Whatever.. That’s enough political for me today.

Carry on…

That’s enough political for me today.

Good move, you may want to actually be able to back up your comments about the looney far left next time.  Have a think about what far left would actually be and then compare it to the pretty moderate Corbyn manifesto.

On the doorstep the govt broadband plan was mostly met with derision (as a canvasser/leafleter)

I concur (it wasn’t policy in 2017 though). And it was a policy that I fully supported… OpenReach just eats subsidies to fail to deliver anywhere near the infrastructure that’s normal across Europe. But selling that policy was impossible. As was the creeping stealth nationalisation of a share of all large companies under the guise of employee ownership (also a 2019 voter repelling late add on)… without the employees actually owning anything. Energy and water nationalisation were popular though. Although nationalising fossil fuel use made no sense to me… it needs to die quietly in the private sector…  the multiple billing company stuff is a total mess, proven by the recent collapses in that sector. Water should still be considered. Well, I’ll go further than that, events will mean water has to be considered.

Rail is happening though. And in a way that makes sense to all but the most ideologically stubborn.

That our economy is now smaller by a considerable margin than it was (taking a year completely at random) than say 2016 for example

At the end of 2023 our economy was just under 8% bigger than it was in 2016.